IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's claim for specific performance was not barred by limitation, and the court exercised its discretion to decree the suit for specific performance. The court also rejected the defendant's contention on the plaintiff's financial capacity and directed the plaintiff to pay an additional sum to the defendant as part of the sale consideration.

JUDGMENT :

This is a defendants’ appeal. The present respondent as a plaintiff had instituted a suit against the present appellant, arraigning him as defendant in O.S.No.51/2014, in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Principal J.M.F.C. at K.G.F. (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “Trial Court”), seeking specific performance of a contract.

2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, the defendant has offered him to sell the suit schedule property to meet his legal and financial necessity and clear family debt. Accordingly, the negotiation took place between them on 05.09.2012. It was agreed in the negotiation that the defendant should sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/-. In that regard, both the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement for sale on 27.03.2013, on the same day, the plaintiff paid an advance consideration in the sale value of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the defendant, which the defendant acknowledged. It was agreed between the parties that the defendant should execute the sale deed and register it in favour of the plaintiff within three months from the date of the agreement for sale after receiving the balance sale consideration of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The defendant also agreed to handover the original documents as on the date of registration of sale deed.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, however, the defendant did not come forward to execute and register a sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff repeatedly requested and demanded the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed. Since the defendant did not respond favourably, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 10.10.2013 calling upon him to perform his part of obligation under the agreement for sale. However, the said notice returned unserved with an endorsement as ‘the addressee left without intimation hence return to the sender’. The plaintiff once again sent a notice on 23.06.2014 to the address of the defendant at Bengaluru. The said notice also returned unserved with an endorsement as ‘intimation issued’. Since the defendant failed to receive the notice, the plaintiff got issued a reminder notice on 12.07.2014. The said notice was served upon the defendant. Still the defendant failed to comply the demand made in the notice. With this, the plaintiff contended that though he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation under the agreement, however, the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract and this constrained him to file a civil suit against the defendant. With this, the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.51/2014 against the defendant (the present appellant).

3. In response to the summons served upon him, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement. In his written statement, the defendant admitted as true that he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that he had purchased the same from his vendor, Sri P.M.Samuel under a registered document for a valuable consideration on 16.04.1977. He also admitted that thereafter, he put up construction of a dwelling house and shop premises, which is the suit schedule property. However, he denied all other averments made in the plaint as false and concocted. He denied that he had executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff and had received an advance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. He also denied that a legal notice was issued to him by the plaintiff. He contended that the suit is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action for the suit. He denied that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract including getting the sale deed executed within three months. However, the defendant contended that he intended